Knowledge-based land use and transport planning? Consistency and gap between “state-of-the-art” knowledge and knowledge claims in planning documents in three Scandinavian city regions

Abstract

The central concern of this paper is the relationship between research-driven “state-of-the-art” knowledge, and knowledge claims made in practice, in planning for sustainability. The paper approaches this topic from a critical realist perspective, which is used to provide criteria for positing “state-of-the-art” knowledge validity, and assessing the quality of situated knowledge claims in planning practice. In this way the paper contributes to debates about an ontological turn in planning knowledge. By reviewing key planning documents in three Scandinavian city regions, the paper shows that the knowledge claims about travel behavioral impacts of proposed land use and transport infrastructure presented in the documents are, to varying extents, in accordance with “state-of-the-art” academic knowledge on these topics. Some long-standing “planning myths” are encountered in the investigated planning documents. In one of the cities, residential and workplace location close to suburban public transport stops is highlighted as a traffic-reducing measure, rather than proximity to inner-city concentrations of jobs and other facilities, and density is discussed at a neighborhood scale rather than at a city scale. In all three cities, planning documents depict road capacity increases as having no traffic-generating effect. These latter claims are used in support of more decentralized land-use patterns and considerable road development. Since the likelihood of achieving sustainability goals relies heavily on whether the measures chosen are productive or counter-productive, knowledge obviously matters. A stronger focus on how well suited proposed strategies for spatial development are to produce their purported outcomes should be welcomed in planning research and practice.

Keywords::

• spatial planning
• knowledge claims
• planning documents
• state-of-the-art knowledge
• sustainable mobility

Acknowledgements

The research on which this article is based was funded by the Swedish Innovation Agency VINNOVA. The authors want to thank project team members Robert Hrejla, Enza Lissandrello, Frode Longva and Tomas Svensson, as well as the three anonymous referees of Planning Theory & Practce, for valuable comments on previous versions of the article.

Notes

^1. According to Banister (2008, p. 75), the sustainable mobility approach requires actions to reduce the need to travel (fewer trips), to encourage modal shift, to reduce trip lengths and to encourage greater efficiency in the transport system.

^2. We use the term “planning documents” in a way including the spatial plans themselves (maps+text) as well as publicly available background documents used by the administration and politicians during the treatment and adoption of the plans.

^3. The term “local neighborhood” is not very precise, and its operationalization varies between studies. In line with the way that neighborhood units were conceptualized by Perry (1929/1998), several studies have measured local-area densities and supply of service facilities within half a mile around the dwelling, and for some purposes within one mile. When discussing the local scale in the present paper, we refer to a scale similar to how it has been conceived in these studies.

^4. This Working Paper was prepared in the Environmental Package for Transport by the municipal administration in response to a number of questions raised by the members of the Climate Committee (a body consisting of politicians from different parties) about the likely impacts of various proposed land use and transport policy measures.

^5. A capacity of 35,000 areas, compared to a capacity of 120,000 new jobs in greenfield development areas (Municipality of Aarhus, 2009, p. 17).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Petter Næss

Petter Næss is Professor of Planning in Urban Regions at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway. Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods, Næss has carried out research for more than two decades on the influence of urban structures on travel behavior. Other research interests include driving forces of urban development, planning theory, and philosophy of science.

Lisa Hansson

Lisa Hansson is Researcher at VTI, the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute in Linköping, Sweden. Her research focus is on mobility, actors and planning processes.

Tim Richardson

Tim Richardson is Professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Urban and Rural Development. His research examines the power dynamics that play out in spatial planning processes, where mobility and environment are at stake.

Aud Tennøy

Aud Tennøy is Chief Research Planner at the Institute of Transport Economics, Dept. of Mobility and Organisation, Oslo, Norway. He research area is planning, land use and Public Transport.